CAMILO D SOUZA Vs. JAMES D COSTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents. The appellant is the claimant in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter, referred to as "the said Act"). The challenge in the appeal is to the Judgment and Award dated 12th June, 2000 passed by the Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Goa, at Margo.

(2.) THE case of the appellant is that on 23rd January, 1993 at about 5.30 p.m., he was proceeding from Kirdolem, Curtorim to his residence as a pillion rider on a motorcycle driven by the fourth respondent. A scooter driven by the first respondent came from the opposite direction. According to the appellant, the scooter was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and it dashed against the motorcycle on which he was proceeding as a pillion rider. THE appellant suffered injuries as a result of the accident, resulting in permanent disability.

(3.) THE first question is whether the third respondent established the fact that there was a breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy by the insured inasmuch as the first respondent was not possessing a valid driving licence on the date of the accident. It is true that there is no issue framed on this aspect. However, the third respondent adduced evidence by examining witnesses Mr. Santosh Gosavi and Joaquim Oliveira. Both the witnesses were examined on the issue as to whether the first respondent was possessing a valid driving licence. Both the witnesses have been cross examined by the Advocate for the appellant. THErefore, the appellant had a notice that the issue regarding absence of licence on the part of the first respondent was being considered by the Tribunal. THE first witness examined by the third respondent is Mr. Santosh Gosavi who was the Asst. Administrative Officer of the third respondent. He stated that as per usual practice, a letter was sent to the owner of the vehicle asking him to produce the relevant documents including the driving licence. However, the concerned respondent did not produce the documents. In the cross examination, he denied the correctness of the suggestion that no letter was sent by the Insurance Company to the insured, calling upon him to produce the driving licence. In the cross examination, the witness stated thus :